|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
DARWINIAN MACRO-EVOLUTIONISM CLAIMS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY;
Please note that as in the title, this essay is about Darwinian macro-evolution (true novelty, not just linear accumulation of micro variations of what was already there) and not about Darwinian micro-evolution (which is changes in the sizes of bird beaks, color patterns etc.) and is about the claims (extreme and totally unjustified by hard science) made by its proponents. The majority of the incompatibility we believe exists is between Darwinian macro evolutionISM (the atheistic philosophical position and the atheists propounding it more than the theory itself, which is not directly anti Christian.)
The evolutionISM arises not primarily from the fact that the theory is very questionable (which it certainly is in many aspects in terms of being a supposed explanation of the total of life) but from the atheistic totally unjustified proclamations that it proponents make about selfish genes, and random variations being the only source of variation, plus atheistic statements about life being accidental and without purpose and other similar totally non scientific and misleading and antisocial statements.
The fundamental conflict between those who believe that naturalistic explanations are fully sufficient as an explanation for all of existing life, is that then one almost inevitably and falsely would then believe that God was not necessary. Such a belief is certainly not based on any factual science or even any possible hard science principle and is not much more than a simplistic atheistic belief.
A book addressing the relationship of Darwinism (macro evolution position) to Christianity has been written by a scientist, Ken Miller, who represents himself as a Christian. We would like to make it very clear that Mr. Miller is in fact trying in his book to argue against those who are over interpreting and misusing Darwinian theory. Regardless of what we see as his failure to fully carry through on that purpose and his positions defending what we believe are unfounded extrapolations of actual science fact, we do not doubt his motives and intentions, but only his ability to see the forest in amongst the trees of Darwinian dogma. His book is titled; "Finding Darwin's God, the search for common ground between God and evolution". We believe he didn't mean for the title to be offensive to other Christians.
The book is an important work and the author makes some good points about the nature of the intellectual conflict. In our judgment, he does not make a case for common ground between the atheistic Darwinian related positions we mentioned above and Christianity. He makes what we see as a weak case for Darwinism (macro evolution) and he makes a number of covert assumptions about God (one of our strong objections to the book.) For another review, link here which is also one place where one could buy the book (second book listed on page) and see what kind of thinking Christianity has to confront.
We agree with mathematician M. Gardner who says in his book; The Ambidextrous Universe on page 125; "that I find something profoundly impious, almost blasphemous, about setting limits of any sort on the power of God to bring about things in any manner He chooses. If God creates a world of particles and waves, dancing in obedience to mathematical and physical laws, who are we to say that He cannot make use of those laws to cover the surface of a small planet with living creatures?
In any case, we applaud the author's courage and integrity for taking on the title subject and we do recommend the following web site; "Science and Religion" as worthwhile for understanding the issues only. We believe, however, that the science given in the book is far less definitive and not at all as compelling as the author believes. The author seems conditioned to make leaps of logic (some what inevitable in those trained in college and by profession to draw conclusions from very marginal evidence.) We believe that the author also sets up straw men to knock down which does not prove anything. An unbiased reader of the book would also have to wonder what gives the author the authority to define what those who disagree with him have to believe? There are in reality many positions taken by Christians and even those who don't take a faith position, which are totally at odds with what the author claims those positions have to be. We are all guilty at times of that mistake and we will probably even make it in this site. The problem is when one takes a position of what others must believe and do it knowingly. We wonder if Mr. Miller did so.
On page 104 of the book for example, the author implies that those who object to Darwinian macroevolution take the position; "one could admit to the reality of the mutational mechanism, but then claim that the results of mutation are almost always bad." He then gives an example where there was a "beneficial" mutation in a bacteria. (Primer: Mutations in a Nutshell is a link to a Nobel prize winner who takes the position that mutations are almost always harmful.) If a Nobel prize winner disagrees with the author, it is clearly at least a reasonable position to take. In addition to ignoring those scientists who disagree with him, the author has set up a straw man statement implying a position taken by the other side of the debate which is not always true of that side. AN INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING (On the basis of basic physical mathematical chemical possibilities, most mutations would in fact be neutral or bad (if they are used by the complex cellular machinery and if they are not eliminated by the incredible molecular error correction machinery found in all cells.) The author gives an example of limited scope where his position is correct to a limited degree, and uses that to imply that the other side is fundamentally wrong. That is just plain false logic and a notorious straw man debate trick.
The truth is that most scientists who object to Darwinian macroevolution believe that beneficial micro mutations are possible but macro evolution is for all practical purposes impossible (extremely low probability but not absolutely impossible) even over extremely long time periods unless it is in some way directed/guided.
In the book the author makes it clear that he is a believer of the Darwinian dogma (beyond micro evolution alone.) He gives what he apparently believes is proof of Darwinian macro evolution. The example he gives is a test on bacteria to see if they can generate, in the presence of oxygen, an enzyme they don't normally produce in those conditions and an experiment in fact showed that they could. We do not question the results of the experiment (we do not have bio chemistry expertise.) The issue is the interpretation of the experiment and that is much disputed. The point we would make is that the results do not argue for random mutations but for some form of guided mutation since the result happened quickly. Random variations do occur in genes and allow limited short term adjustment to the environment with any significant probability. That point is not at issue. Such micro evolution of course allows for small/micro changes in life.
The real question is what drove the changes, what is a reasonable limit to belief of what the experiment implies and what did the experiment prove. What the experiment showed as to the mechanism of macro evolution and what it proved are very much clearly arguable. See page 2.b. of this link site. (That most sites on the web do agree with Mr. Miller is the case, but that is to be expected since many pocketbooks and professional reputations are at risk if biochemists such as Michele Behe or Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D. Biochemistry are correct in their positions.)
Certainly, a proof is a sequence of logical steps which are not open to interpretation but are, rather, fully compelling. This experiment does not represent anything like a proof of Darwinian macro evolution. A proof would require a determination of what molecular elements were present to begin with, how large were the changes (additions or variations in existing molecules) needed to be made, knowledge that only random variations were at work, a demonstration that random variations in the period of time for the test were adequate to account for all the new information, and a demonstration that such a finding was adequate to bridge gaps of the size seen in different taxa before it would "prove" that Darwinism were adequate to justify the belief that it is the full explanation for life (even ignoring the major problem for Darwinists of the origin of life.)
Mr. Miller, says on page 106 of his book: "Score one for evolution." If he is talking about micro evolution (small and not truly novel changes) yes it scored a micro one. The author himself says later on the page "The researchers then analyzed the mutant genes and discovered that the changes were remarkably simple." One must note that it is not being argued, however, that Darwinism can make such "remarkably simple" molecular changes. It is not at all at real issue that Darwinism can make small changes such as the length of bird beaks.
It is very much disputed that complex interdependent changes can be made in a precisely coordinated way by Darwinism alone (selection from additive accumulation of random micro changes.) One of the problem with Darwinists is that they frequently slip into a mode of thinking where they assume that some experimentally shown mechanism can be extrapolated without limit to explain everything about life, when there is nothing like a real proof that such is the case. They get caught up in a mode of thinking (trained to do so in college in studying a field where there are huge gaps in the factual evidence) and assume that their paradigm can span all gaps. One wonders if they have forgotten what a real proof is like or were never taught it in say a college math class.
The author is, in any case, to be commended for the courage of addressing tough issues in what we are sure is an honest way from his viewpoint. Here are other opinions on this book that may be worth referencing. The book, in any case, does a good job of pointing out what Christianity is up against and the antisocial implications of Darwinism dogma.
We believe it is clear that the real world is far different than a Darwinian world where selfish gene dogma and supposedly truly random events rule. Certainly selfish behavior of life forms is not the basis of any belief in a loving God. The book addresses these subjects very well but does not show that Christianity is compatible with such dogma. The book does not address the numerous/major questions left unanswered by Darwinism.
The reality, in any case, is that macro evolution Darwinism is essentially an atheistic belief. On page 171 the author quotes S. Gould as saying; "the sentiments of Richard Dawkins--who, as we have seen counted among Darwin's achievements the fact that he "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."" This shows that macro evolution Darwinism points to most people in the direction of atheism. The Darwinian dogma leaders such as Dawkins openly state that philosophy. Mr. Millers book fails, however, to show how Darwinian macro evolution dogma fails (as it does) to give atheists a scientifically defensible position in regards to the origin, full existence, discontinuities between taxa, and extremely improbable complex and harmonious evolution of life.
The real world is incredibly harmonious and ruled by
cooperative genes to a much higher degree that selfishness and most
importantly, even if some form of gene driven evolution is more than a fine
tuning mechanism, it can never be proven (even in
principle) that only random events govern the
changes in the genes.
To his credit, the author of the book says on page 208; "Quantum physics tell us that absolute knowledge, complete understanding, a total grasp of universal reality, will never be ours. Somehow the author doesn't seem to realize that if his statement is true, it is by definition also true of the origin and evolution of life and whatever role Darwinism may play. Life is so complex, even at the cellular level, it will almost certainly never be fully understood in scientific details. It is even far less probable that in scientific terms, how life came to be what it is will ever be understood. There will always be room for faith and interpretation.
It is very important to understand the it is Darwinian macro evolution that is at issue and not micro evolution. On page 8, the author, talking about micro-evolution versus macro-evolution, says about those who interpret the hard scientific facts differently than Darwinists; "By pretending that every example ever discovered of evolution in action is "just microevolution, you can disqualify whole categories of important evidence-----." First of all, the numerous scientists who disagree with him and other Darwinists are not pretending, they are looking at the evidence from a different viewpoint (usually one that does not have a monetary bias as is the case with those who make their livings in paleontology and other fields of evolution science.) Secondly, if all the evidence is really only microevolution, then of course it should be seen that way. Also, pretending that every micro evolution discovery is macro evolution (that it is much more than it really is) is certainly not defensible.
Rejecting very limited evidence as not more than that, is not disqualifying anything. It is just putting it in its proper place. Refer to our essay as to what real evidence of macroevolution would look like if it ever comes to exist to any degree. Certainly the author's frequent use of ____"could" have happened, is nothing like evidence and detracts from his work. "Could have happened" is not science.
The book does contain some good reasoning which shows the compatibility with basic science (not macro Darwinism) and a belief in God in Christianity, but the book contains some very questionable comments for someone of faith and sets up many straw men to make invalid claims. The worst is probably the on page 161 where he says; "If God the mechanic did all this marvelous work, then he must have done it at a particular time in natural history ------ and there's the problem." How can someone be a Christian and believe that he is able to "define" God as a mechanic and also to "define" that God "must" have only acted at one point in time or in a particular way and believe he can say what God "must" have done. This is the classical position of those who don't believe in God or those who believe that they can define God in their terms, and is not, we believe, consistent with a very deep faith in God even if the author has such a faith.
In the author's defense, his view of God is not all negative. The author says on page 243; "A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation---" This last sentence does not seem consistent with a belief in evolution by simple selection from random variations.
We agree only to a limited point in Millers view of God and probably not his reasoning underlying it. We disagree with the belief that the God of Christianity merely set up the laws of physics and initial conditions of the universe and let things go with no physical involvement after that. Even the scientific evidence does not indicate that the universe is that tightly pre ordered. The most basic law of physics indicates that universe has an inherent but limited freedom to it. This is consistent with the Christian God who is clearly involved actively in His creation. We do not understand how someone could believe that God answers prayer and even sent His Son but did not and does not get involved in the direction of life physically at some level at least at key/branching points in history.
If (completely contrary in probability to the scientific evidence) it turned out that God set up the laws of physics, the initial conditions of the universe and the earliest life forms and did nothing else thereafter in directing evolution and let evolution run undirected at every level, that would not be inconsistent with basic Christianity. At this time, however, that seems totally inconsistent with the evidence to a high degree of probability. Probability calculations done on many aspects of reality and life and based on hard science, even with best case assumptions in favor of chance alone and Darwinism, indicate to a near certainty that variation from whatever source is being selected from by intelligence to produce the universe and life.
The book is worth reading (if the reader knows beforehand that it contains a lot of Darwinian dogma propaganda presented as though it is fact and the only possible interpretation of the hard science.) The book is of value primarily because it discusses important issues relating to faith and shows how the Darwinian community "reasons" about evolution.
We believe, however, that the author misses the mark and apparently cannot see beyond the bias he has from being within, dependent on to some degree and clearly committed to the Darwinian community. We all view the truth thru the window of our beliefs. It seems, sadly, as though the author has a stronger window of Darwinism than his window of Christianity.
There is an inherent conflict between Darwinism and theism (start reading third paragraph down.)
Here is a site which believes in detente between science and religion. (We believe there is no inherent conflict between true science and religion and the main reason for conflict is unfound atheist quasi scientific positions. We do not fully agree, however, with the sites positions.)
An Imperfect Union: Darwin, Divinity, and Design
“A True Acid Test” , Response to Ken Miller
In defense of Ken Millers Christianity here is a link to another of his views which supports his faith. (Which we respect.)
Life as Information Processing (Second and third paragraphs refute Millers micro examples of supposed macro-evolution.)
Why Faithful Catholics should oppose Evolution. (Good points for anyone of faith.)
News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution
Why haven't all pray species evolved toxic defenses? CO-EVOLUTION OF DEADLY TOXINS AND PREDATOR RESISTANCE: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF RESISTANCE BY GARTER SNAKES